After years of endless speculation, Apple finally announced the Vision Pro, its much-anticipated mixed-reality headset, during WWDC23. In typical fashion, Apple took its sweet time before finally pulling the trigger, with Meta taking the liberty of experimenting with its VR headset and the so-called metaverse in the meantime. Yet despite Meta having such an enormous head start, Apple’s headset doesn't look like it's lagging behind the Meta Quest Pro by that much. In fact, Apple could arguably displace Meta as the lead in the VR space quite easily, and a big reason why is the sheer difference in their user privacy track records.
Deep wounds don’t heal that quickly
To this day, Meta is still synonymous with privacy concerns and potential data breaches. Courtesy of the infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal, where the British consulting firm collected the data of millions of Facebook users without their consent (predominantly for political campaigns), many people are still holding grudges toward the social media giant. The implications were huge, to say the least, firmly putting CEO Mark Zuckerberg in the hot seat. As a result, the company vowed to take several measures to tackle its privacy concerns and put an end to any lingering shenanigans, including employing the EU’s consumer protection privacy laws in all regions voluntarily in an attempt to rectify the issue and incidentally improve its reputation.
However, after endless attempts to heal the wounds inflicted on its user base, including a rebranding of the company to Meta, it's not that easy to simply wipe off such an agonizingly awful track record, particularly when it comes to user privacy.
Having a VR headset with such capable hardware feeding sensitive data to a company accused of user data manipulation certainly doesn't bode all too well for a lot of people.
However, now that Meta is in control of the top consumer VR headset on the market, which includes numerous cameras and sensors onboard, what was once a far-fetched conspiracy theory has snowballed into a genuine worry, especially when considering the company’s huge endeavors into kicking off its infamous metaverse. Having a VR headset with such capable hardware feeding sensitive data to a company accused of user data manipulation certainly doesn't bode all too well for a lot of people.
Meta’s thorn is Apple’s crown jewel
On the other hand, if there is anything Apple prides itself on the most, it's how focused it is on the user’s privacy and security. Throughout the years, Apple has remained laser-focused on improving privacy features across its ecosystem, with features like App Tracking Transparency perfectly showing the company’s commitment to the case, even if it means severely hurting other platforms. And the Vision Pro is no different, with Apple wasting no time in announcing Optic ID, a new secure means of authentication, while discussing the security and privacy aspects of its glorious headset. To say Apple is just taking its users’ privacy seriously would be an understatement.
So when a company with such a commitment to preserving the user’s privacy enters the coveted VR industry, it's only natural to see Meta’s efforts in taking control of the VR space substantially undermined. In fact, it seems like Apple’s place in the market was already reserved no matter how late their entry was, courtesy of Meta's reputation on the privacy front.
On the surface, given that Meta's headsets were looked at as the benchmark of the VR/AR market despite its previous privacy woes, Apple might look like the great savior, finally answering the people's endless calls after years of rumors and conjecture. However, digging a bit deeper into the possible motives of both companies in the longer run paints a different picture.
What will the Meta vs Apple battle look like?
It's easier to spot Meta’s longer-term objective, which is taking control over possibly the next chapter of the internet, mostly because Zuckerberg himself said so in a blog post. Until nearly a year ago, if you asked Zuckerberg what would that be, his answer would certainly be the metaverse. The company heavily invested a lot of its resources into developing the metaverse over the past couple of years, but it seems that Meta has come to realize that the future might lie elsewhere.
The company has now decided to focus on incorporating AI in its products, perhaps steering the rudder toward the regular consumer market instead of targeting more niche markets. For example, the upcoming Meta Quest 3, which was unveiled by Zuckerberg not that long ago, will be the true successor to the Quest 2, not the Quest Pro. Among the highlights are the relatively affordable $500 price tag and the AI-assisted Scene Understanding and Spatial Anchors features. This all echoes the company's initiative of shifting its focus to the mainstream market, especially after announcing some significant price cuts to Quest 2 and Quest Pro headsets.
Nonetheless, it's fair to say that Meta remains on a mission to be not only part of the next big thing but to be at the center of it, with its VR headset forming part of that foundation.
On the other hand, Apple’s potential longer-term objective doesn't seem to be about monopolizing a market or even going mainstream. Cue how Apple announced its Vision Pro headset as a “spatial computer," evading any possible mentions of VR or mixed-reality while terming the operating system as visionOS. Apple also showcased its tight Mac integration and how the Vision Pro can be used to seamlessly extend the content on your Mac device on a giant virtual display.
However, we don't know whether similar features will exist for other devices in the near future. In typical Apple fashion, the Vision Pro is secluded from any other non-Apple ecosystem and was presented as a product in a league of its own. It doesn't even co-exist with any other competing products sharing the same core principles, such as the Quest Pro headset. In other words, if there are any devices the Vision Pro complements, they are Apple’s own Mac devices and iPhones only.
If there is any suggestion that can be drawn from that, it's that Apple intends to tie one of its most sought-after products to its walled garden, something it has excelled at doing for many years.
Looking at the bigger picture, both incentives are more like two sides of the same coin. Both companies want to draw their consumers into their respective ecosystems. The only difference is how each company sets the boundaries around those ecosystems. Of course, competition is always good for the customers. But ultimately, it is only a matter of choosing which walled garden to step into.